Babyprem Limited

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: March 11, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Babyprem Limited
_____

Serial No. 87112032
_____

Amy A. Rollins of Brannon Sowers & Cracraft PC,
for Babyprem Limited.

Charles H. Hiser IV, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112,
Renee Severance, Managing Attorney.

_____

Before Bergsman, Goodman and Pologeorgis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Babyprem Limited (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of

the mark BABYPREM (in standard characters) for, inter alia, the goods and services

listed below:

Clothing for babies, excluding shoes, namely, shirts and
pants; romper suits; cloth bibs; sleepsuits; baby bodysuits;
christening gowns; nappy pants; underpants for babies;
hats for infants; booties; t-shirts; socks; shorts; mittens;
dresses; vests; cardigans; jackets; snowsuits being one
piece, waterproof, insulated, clothing for snow; trousers;
tights; jumpers; jeans; shawls; specifically adapted parts
Serial No. 87112032

and fittings for all the aforesaid; bed clothes, namely, night
shirts; baby bunting, in Class 25; and

Retail store and online retail store services featuring
clothing, footwear, headgear, clothing for babies, romper
suits, cloth bibs, sleepsuits, bodysuits, christening gowns,
nappy pants, underpants for babies, hats for infants,
booties, t-shirts, socks, shorts, mittens, dresses, vests,
cardigans, jackets, snowsuits, trousers, shoes, tights,
jumpers, jeans, parts and fittings for all the aforesaid, in
Class 35.1

The Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark for the goods in

Class 25 and the listed services in Class 35 under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act,

15 U.S.C § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark so resembles the registered

mark PREM (in standard characters) for

Boots; Boots for motorcycling; Boots for sport; Clogs;
Espadrilles; Flip flops; Footwear; Footwear; Footwear for
men; Footwear for men and women; Footwear for track and
field athletics; Footwear for women; Footwear made of
vinyl; Footwear, namely, pumps; Footwear, namely,
rubbers; Footwear, namely, work boots; Rubber shoes;
Rubbers; Shoe accessories, namely, fitted decorative covers
for shoes; Shoe covers for use when wearing shoes; Shoe
dowels; Shoe inserts for primarily non-orthopedic
purposes; Shoe pegs; Shoe soles; Shoe straps; Shoe uppers;
Shoes; Shoes for babies, toddlers, Adolescents, teens,
adults, elderly, boys, girls, man and women; Shoes with
hook and pile fastening tapes; Slippers; Thong footwear;
Anglers’ shoes; Ankle boots; Aqua shoes; Athletic footwear;
Athletic shoes; Ballet shoes; Ballet slippers; Ballroom
dancing shoes; Baseball shoes; Bath slippers; Beach
footwear; Beach shoes; Boat shoes; Bowling shoes; Boxing

1 Serial No. 87112032, filed on July 21, 2016, under Section 44(d) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1127(d), based on Applicant’s European Trademark Application No. 015088099
filed February 8, 2016. Applicant’s European Trademark Application registered August 4,
2016.
The application includes goods in Classes 10, 20, 24, 25, as well as additional services in Class
35.

-2-
Serial No. 87112032

shoes; Canvas shoes; Cleats for attachment to sports shoes;
Climbing footwear; Climbing shoes; Cycling shoes; Dance
shoes; Dance slippers; Deck-shoes; Drivers; Flip flops;
Football shoes; Footwear, namely, pumps; Footwear,
namely, rubbers; Footwear, namely, work boots; Golf
shoes; Gym boots; Gymnastic shoes; Half-boots; Handball
shoes; Heel pieces for shoes; High rain clogs (ashida);
Hiking boots; Hockey shoes; Horse-riding boots; Hunting
boots; Infants’ shoes and boots; Insoles; Insoles; Insoles for
footwear; Japanese style clogs and sandals; Japanese style
wooden clogs (geta); Lace boots; Ladies’ boots; Leather
boots; Leather shoes; Leather slippers; Leisure shoes; Low
wooden clogs (hiyori-geta); Low wooden clogs (koma-geta);
Motorcyclist boots; Mountaineering boots; Mountaineering
shoes; Mules; Non-slip soles for footwear; Patient slippers;
Platform shoes; Plimsolls; Protective metal members for
shoes and boots; Protective metal members for shoes and
boots; Pumps; Rain boots; Riding boots; Riding shoes;
Rubber shoes; Rugby shoes; Running shoes; Running pads
that strap onto shoes; Sandal-clogs; Sandals and beach
shoes; Ski boot liners; Skiing shoes; Snow boots; Soccer
boots; Soccer shoes; Sports shoes; Tap shoes; Tennis shoes;
Thong footwear; Toe straps for Japanese style wooden
clogs; Track and field shoes; Training shoes; Trekking
boots; Volleyball shoes; Water proof boots; Water repelling
boots; Water repelling footwear; Water repelling leather
boots; Water repelling leather shoes and boots; Water
repelling leather shoes and boots; Water ski boot liners;
Waterproof footwear; Waterproof leather boots; Waterproof
leather shoes; Waterproof leather shoes and boots;
Waterproof leather shoes and boots; Winter boots;
Women’s shoes; Women’s shoes, namely, foldable flats;
Wooden clogs; Wooden shoes; Wooden shoes; Work shoes
and boots; Work shoes and boots, in Class 25.2

2 Registration No. 5003356, registered July 19, 2016.
The Section 2(d) refusal is limited to the goods in Class 25 and the partial list of services in
Class 35 noted in the body of this decision.

-3-
Serial No. 87112032

When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested

reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for

reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. The appeal has been briefed.

Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the

probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the issue of

likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,

177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973) (“du Pont”) cited in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis

Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015); see also In re Majestic

Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have

considered each du Pont factor that is relevant or for which there is evidence of record.

See M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947

(Fed. Cir. 2006); ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1232, 1242

(TTAB 2015) (“While we have considered each factor for which we have evidence, we

focus our analysis on those factors we find to be relevant.”). In any likelihood of

confusion analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks

and the similarities between the goods or services. See In re Chatam Int’l Inc.,

380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1945-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Federated Foods, Inc. v.

Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The

fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences

in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); see also

In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

(“The likelihood of confusion analysis considers all DuPont factors for which there is

-4-
Serial No. 87112032

record evidence but ‘may focus … on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the

marks and relatedness of the goods’”) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc.,

308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

A. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.

We turn first to the du Pont likelihood of confusion factor focusing on the

similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,

connotation and commercial impression. du Pont, 177 USPQ at 567. “Similarity in

any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”

In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014). In comparing the marks, we are

mindful that “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but

instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial

impression’ such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a

connection between the parties.” Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,

668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also San Fernando Elec.

Mfg. Co. v. JFD Elec. Components Corp., 565 F.2d 683, 196 USPQ 1, 3 (CCPA 1977);

Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d mem.,

972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

The proper focus is on the recollection of the average customer, who retains a

general rather than specific impression of the marks. Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas

Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971); L’Oreal S.A. v.

Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Oliver &

Winston, Inc., 207 USPQ 335, 344 (TTAB 1980); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co.,

-5-
Serial No. 87112032

190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975). Because the goods and services at issue are baby

clothes, footwear, and retail store and online retail store services featuring clothing,

baby clothes, footwear, and headgear without any restrictions or limitations as to

price, channels of trade, or classes of consumers, the average purchaser is an ordinary

consumer.

As noted above Applicant is seeking to register the mark BABYPREM and the

mark in the cited registration is PREM. The marks are similar because they share

the term PREM. Although we assess each mark in its entirety, the term PREM is the

dominant part of Applicant’s mark BABYPREM because the word “Baby” modifies

“Prem” and indicates that the subject of Applicant’s goods and services is products

and services for babies. There is nothing improper in stating that, for rational

reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, such as

a common dominant element, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on a

consideration of the marks in their entireties. In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056,

224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 101

USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

BABY PREM and PREM are visually similar and they sound similar.

The term “Prem” is defined as “premium” or “premier.”3 However, Applicant

submitted evidence showing that “Prem” is a shortened version of Registrant’s

3 YourDictionary.com based on Webster’s New World College Dictionary (2010) (TSDR 13);
Oxford Living Dictionaries (en.oxforddictionaries.com) (TSDR 15); Merriam-Webster.com
(TSDR 16) all attached to the November 4, 2016 Office Action.
Citations to the USPTO TSDR database are to the downloadable .pdf format of the respective
documents in the USPTO TSDR Case Viewer.

-6-
Serial No. 87112032

principal’s name for Premrudee Leehacharoenkul.4 Premrudee is a Thai name.5

Because Applicant did not submit any evidence regarding the extent of U.S.

consumers with a Thai background or familiar with Thai names, we are unable to

find that significant segment of relevant consumers perceive “Prem” to be shortened

version of Premrudee. Accordingly, we find that a significant segment of relevant

consumers perceive the term “Prem” to mean and engender the commercial

impression of premium or premier goods and services.

Consumers encountering Applicant’s mark BABYPREM for baby clothing and

retail and online store services in the field of baby clothing, clothing, and footwear

Also, the Examining Attorney submitted definitions from the Collins Dictionary
(collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/). We note that Collins Dictionary offers a British
and an American version. This entry by the Examining Attorney appears to be from the
British version, which does not necessarily evidence perceptions of the term by consumers in
the United States. See In re Manwin/RK Collateral Trust, 111 USPQ2d 1311, 1313 n.18
(TTAB 2014) (finding such definitions from the British version of the Collins Dictionary to be
“of little or no probative value”). Accordingly, we do not consider the definition from the
Collins Dictionary.
“Prem” may also be defined as “a prematurely born infant.” YourDictionary.com based on the
English Wiktionary (November 4, 2016 Office Action at TSDR 13). YourDictionary.com
describes Wiktionary as “a wiki-based Open Content dictionary.” “Wiki-based” content is “a
website that allows anyone to add, delete, or revise content by using a web browser.”
Dictionary.com based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2019). The Board may
take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries that exist in printed
format. In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4 (TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d
594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Threshold.TV Inc. v. Metronome Enters. Inc., 96
USPQ2d 1031, 1038 n.14 (TTAB 2010); In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB
2006). Because Wiktionary is an open content source that may be edited by anyone, it is not
as reliable as the traditional dictionary definitions that the Examining Attorney submitted.
See In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84 USPQ2d 1028, 1032 (TTAB 2007) (“Our
consideration of Wikipedia evidence is with the recognition of the limitations inherent with
Wikipedia (e.g., that anyone can edit it and submit intentionally false or erroneous
information.)”). Accordingly, the Wiktionary definition is not as persuasive as the definitions
from the traditional dictionaries.
4 August 24, 2018 Request for Reconsideration (6 TTABVUE 10, 37-60).
5 August 24, 2018 Request for Reconsideration (6 TTABVUE 47, 50).

-7-
Serial No. 87112032

who are familiar with Registrant’s PREM mark for footwear may mistakenly believe

that BABYPREM is the PREM line of baby clothes and retail and online store services

because of the similarity of the marks.

We find that Applicant’s mark BABYPREM is similar to Registrant’s mark PREM

in terms of appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. Thus, the

first du Pont factor favors a finding that confusion is likely.

B. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the services, established, likely-
to-continue channels of trade and purchasers to whom sales are made.

We must consider the goods and services as they are described in Applicant’s

application and the cited registration. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital

LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys,

Inc. v. Houston Comput. Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (“The authority is legion that the question of registrability of an applicant’s

mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the

application regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an

applicant’s goods, the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers to which

the sales of goods are directed.”). See also Paula Payne Prods. v. Johnson Publ’g Co.,

473 F.2d 901, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (CCPA 1973) (“Trademark cases involving the issue

of likelihood of confusion must be decided on the basis of the respective descriptions

of goods”). We also do not read limitations into the identification of services. In re

i.am.symbolic, LLC, 123 USPQ2d at 1748; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038,

216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“There is no specific limitation and nothing in

the inherent nature of Squirtco’s mark or goods that restricts the usage of SQUIRT

-8-
Serial No. 87112032

for balloons to promotion of soft drinks. The Board, thus, improperly read limitations

into the registration”); In re Thor Tech, 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638 (TTAB 2009) (“We

have no authority to read any restrictions or limitations into the registrant’s

description of goods.”).

Applicant is seeking to register BABYPREM for baby clothes and retail and online

retail store services featuring clothing, footwear, headgear, and clothing for babies.

The description of goods in the cited registration is for a wide variety of footwear,

including shoes for babies and toddlers. Accordingly, we may not consider Applicant’s

contention that Registrant’s footwear are creations of art, rather than commercial

products, and are not sold to the general public because Registrant’s description of

goods are not so limited.6

The Examining Attorney submitted the evidence listed below to show that third

parties use the same mark on footwear, baby clothes, online retail store services

featuring clothing, footwear and baby clothing and shoes and that the products are

offered in the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers:

Target.com advertises the sale of Eddie Bauer baby clothing and baby shoes on

the same webpage.7

H&M website (hm.com) advertises the sale of H&M brand baby clothes, including

baby shoes and sunhats.8

6 Applicant’s Brief, pp. 11-12 (8 TTABVUE 12-13).
7February 24, 2017 (TSDR 6). The EddieBauer.com webpage advertises that its collection of
baby products is sold at Target stores and Target.com. Id. at TSDR 7.
8 Id. at TSDR 8-9.

-9-
Serial No. 87112032

L.L. Bean website (llbean.com) advertises the sale of L.L. BEAN baby clothes,

including shoes.9

Nike.com website advertises the sale of NIKE baby clothes and shoes.10

Ralph Lauren website (ralphlauren.com) advertises the sale of POLO baby clothes

and shoes.11

Gap.com website advertises the sale of GAP baby clothes, including shoes and

hats.12

J.Crew website (https://factory.jcrew.com) advertises the sale of JCREW baby

clothes, including shoes.13

The Vans website (vans.com) advertises the sale of VANS men’s, women’s, and

children’s clothes, including baby clothes and shoes.14

The Adidas website (adidas.com) advertising the sale of ADIDAS adult clothing

and shoes, baby clothes, and shoes.15

9 Id. at TSDR 10-11. Although baby shoes are not specifically displayed on the webpage of
record, the webpage has a link for footwear, including “Infants’ & Toddlers’ footwear.”
10Id. at TSDR 12. The Examining Attorney submitted a different version of this website
advertising the sale of adult shoes in the November 27, 2017 Office Action (TSDR 9-12).
11Id. at TSDR 13-15. The Examining Attorney submitted a different version of this website
advertising the sale of adult shoes in the November 27, 2017 Office Action (TSDR 13-17).
12Id. at TSDR 16-20. The Examining Attorney submitted a different version of this website
advertising the sale of adult shoes in the November 27, 2017 Office Action (TSDR 26-32).
13 Id. at TSDR 23.
14 November 27, 2017 Office Action (TSDR 22-25). The Examining Attorney submitted a
different version of this website advertising the sale of adult shoes in the August 25, 2017
Denial of Request for Reconsideration (4 TTABVUE 10-13).
15 August 25, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (4 TTABVUE 6-9 and 35-36).

– 10 –
Serial No. 87112032

The Hugo Boss website (hugoboss.com) advertising the sale of BOSS adult shoes,

baby clothes and shoes.16

The Under Armour website (underarmour.com) advertising the sale of Under

Armour adult clothes and shoes, and baby clothes and shoes.17

The Old Navy website (oldnavy.com) advertising the sale of adult shoes and

clothes and baby clothes and shoes.18

The Burberry website (burberry.com) advertising the sale of adult shoes and baby

clothes and shoes.19

The evidence shows that (1) third parties use the same marks to identify adult

footwear, baby clothes and footwear, and online retail store services featuring those

products; (2) third parties advertise the sale of their adult and baby footwear and

men’s, women’s, and baby clothes through online retail store services; and (3) some

of the same consumers purchase those goods through online retail store services.

Applicant argues that many of the websites of the online retailers submitted by

the Examining Attorney sell a wide range of products, some relating to each other,

and many others not, and that in such situations, consumers are able to distinguish

between the two companies despite the use of similar component in each of their

16 August 25, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (4 TTABVUE 14-16 and 37-38).
17 August 25, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (4 TTABVUE 17-21).
18 August 25, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (4 TTABVUE 22-28 and 33-34). It
is unclear from the excerpt presented whether the products advertised for sale are OLD
NAVY brand products.
19August 25, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration (4 TTABVUE 29-32). It is unclear
from the excerpt presented whether the products advertised for sale are BURBERRY brand
products.

– 11 –
Serial No. 87112032

marks.20 However, as noted above, the evidence submitted by the Examining

Attorney shows that third-parties use the same mark to identify and distinguish their

clothing, baby clothing, shoes, baby shoes and online retail store services selling those

products. Thus, consumers will perceive that those goods and services are related

because consumers encounter those goods and services sold under the same marks.

In addition, the evidence shows that Applicant’s attempt to distinguish its baby

clothes by excluding shoes is ineffective because so many third parties sell baby

clothes and baby shoes under the same marks.

Under similar circumstances the Board has found that shoes and clothing are

related products. See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991)

(women’s shoes and women’s clothing are related products); In re Apparel Ventures,

Inc., 229 USPQ 225, 227 (TTAB 1986) (women’s blouses, skirts, and sweaters are

related to shoes, boots and slippers); In re Kangaroos U.S.A., 223 USPQ 1025, 1026

(TTAB 1984) (athletic shoes are related to men’s shirts). Also, under similar

circumstances, the Board has found that the use of similar marks on or in connection

with both products and retail store services have been found related. In re Hyper

Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (furniture

and general merchandise store services); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073,

1078 (TTAB 2015) (beer and for retail store services featuring beer); In re Thomas,

79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store

services); In re Peebles, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1796 (TTAB 1992) (holding the use of

20 Applicant’s Brief, p. 10 (8 TTABVUE 11).

– 12 –
Serial No. 87112032

nearly identical marks for coats and for retail outlets featuring camping and

mountain climbing equipment, including coats, likely to cause confusion, noting that

“there is no question that store services and the goods which may be sold in that store

are related goods and services for the purpose of determining likelihood of confusion”);

Steelcase, Inc. v. Steelcare, Inc., 219 USPQ 433, 435 (TTAB 1983) (furniture and

furniture refinishing).

We find that the goods and services are related, offered in the same channels of

trade and offered to the same classes of consumers.

C. Conclusion

Because the marks are similar, the goods and services are related, and the goods

and services are offered in the same channels of trade to some of the same classes of

consumers, we find that Applicant’s mark BABYPREM for clothing for babies and

retail store and online store services featuring, inter alia, clothing, footwear,

headgear, clothing for babies is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark

PREM for footwear, including shoes for babies and toddlers.

Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark for the goods in Class 25 and

“retail store and online retail store services featuring clothing, footwear, headgear,

clothing for babies, romper suits, cloth bibs, sleepsuits, bodysuits, christening gowns,

nappy pants, underpants for babies, hats for infants, booties, t-shirts, socks, shorts,

mittens, dresses, vests, cardigans, jackets, snowsuits, trousers, shoes, tights,

jumpers, jeans, parts and fittings for all the aforesaid,” in Class 35 is affirmed.

– 13 –
Serial No. 87112032

The application will proceed to publication solely with regard to the goods

identified in Classes 10, 20, and 24, as well as the following services in Class 35:

Advertising services; business management; on-line
business administration of a discount, special offer and gift
voucher schemes; organization, operation and business
administration of loyalty and incentive schemes via the
internet and mobile devices; retail store and online retail
store services featuring babies dummies and soothers,
furniture, nursery furniture, storage furniture, clothes
hangers, clothes hooks, pillows, mattresses, mattress
toppers, cushions, mattress bases, mats for infant
playpens, toy chests, decorative mobiles, playpens for
babies; retail store and online retail store services
featuring high chairs, high chairs for babies, babies’
cradles, children’s cradles, bouncing cradles, cots, cots for
use by children and infants, cribs, nursery cots, safety cots,
travel cots, bassinettes, baby nests in the nature of padded
baby carriers, bedding for cots, sleeping bags for babies,
sleeping bags for pushchairs, expandable safety gates for
door openings, expandable safety gates for stairs; retail
store and online retail store services featuring mattress
covers, mattress protectors, non-woven textile fabrics,
muslin cloths, sheets, textile material, towels of textile,
washing mitts, textiles for making clothing, duvets, duvet
covers, pillow covers, bath linen, bed canopies, curtains,
blankets, bed blankets made of cotton, bed blankets made
of wool, bed blankets made of man-made fibres; retail store
and online retail store services featuring blankets for
babies, cot blankets, lap blankets, children’s blankets,
travel blankets, blankets for use in pushchairs, strollers
and prams, towel blankets, hooded towels, hooded towels
for babies, face towels, children’s towels, sleeping bags for
babies, pillowcases, pillow cover and protectors, Moses
sheets, fitted sheets, shawls, bumper sets; retail store and
online retail store services featuring support pillows for use
in baby car safety seats, baby changing mats, changing
mats, children’s safety gates, baby walkers, Moses baskets,
crib and basket stands, cot wedges, textiles and textile
goods, fabrics, linens, bed covers, bed quilts, bed blankets,
bed clothes, bed covers of paper, bed linen, bunting, cotton
fabrics, covers for cushions, fabrics for textile use,
household linen.

– 14 –